The battle of evolution vs creationism

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Bio-babble? It's called "science."

There is a ton of observational evidence available to you and everyone else. The problem is, you refuse to observe it for yourself. Did you look up ring species yet??

I am talking about macroevolution.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

What about the truth? claimed as fact now?


This is viewed a truth for most of the educated world.

IAP - IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution


We agree that the following evidence-based facts

about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:
•In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
•Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
•Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
•Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

Speculation.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am talking about macroevolution.

So was I.

You could start by learning what it actually is.

Macroevolution

Let me know when you bother looking up "ring species."

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If you can't see it you don't believe it? Are you sure that is the stand you want to take?

I should be able to observe macroevolution the same way I observe microevolution. Your response to this is "it takes so long to occur", well, that just doesn't sit right with me. That is just the evolutionists' way to stall. Evolution is a con. Satan has conned mankind dressed in a white lab coat.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So was I.

You could start by learning what it actually is.

Macroevolution

Let me know when you bother looking up "ring species."

I would like observational evidence of macroevolution. Anything beyond this is insufficient evidence, and even that is being modest.

 

[metis]

I would like observational evidence of macroevolution. Anything beyond this is insufficient evidence, and even that is being modest.

What I find so bizarre about your posts is that you continually ignore the massive amounts of evidence that there is about evolution, and then you keep insisting there's "insufficient evidence" to support it, which is simply not true. Apparently you don't realize that religious faith of any type, including yours, is based on "insufficient evidence".

I'm not saying your faith is wrong, but simply that, as any serious theologian will tell you, it's based on faith, which by definition is not reliant on evidence. So, for you to keep insisting that we need more evidence, which is not true, is actually quite hypocritical.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I would like observational evidence of macroevolution. Anything beyond this is insufficient evidence, and even that is being modest.

Look up RING SPECIES. For the 97th time.

Also, go and read back through the thread, where plenty of evidence has been presented to you. Look around at some academic sites. Read a textbook.

Seriously, there are actually good reasons behind the fact that evolution is accepted by all scientific organizations. It is one of, if not the most, solid and well evidenced scientific theories in existence. No joke. ALL the evidence to date (that's well over 150 years now), points to the fact of evolution. NONE of the evidence to date, has falsified it. People from all different religious persuasions accept evolution. Biology makes no sense without it.


ENSI/SENSI Papers & Articles:Macroevolution Lessons
University of California, San Diego: External Relations: News & Information: News Releases : Science
From micro- to macroevolution through quantitative... [Evolution. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI
Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

What I find so bizarre about your posts is that you continually ignore the massive amounts of evidence that there is about evolution, and then you keep insisting there's "insufficient evidence" to support it, which is simply not true.

It is true to me.

Apparently you don't realize that religious faith of any type, including yours, is based on "insufficient evidence".

It is sufficient to me and the other billions of religious believers in this world.

I'm not saying your faith is wrong, but simply that, as any serious theologian will tell you, it's based on faith, which by definition is not reliant on evidence. So, for you to keep insisting that we need more evidence, which is not true, is actually quite hypocritical.

I have reasons for what I believe. These reasons are good enough for me...they are convincing to me. I can't speak for the next person.

 

[McBell]

Until you can give me actual observational evidence instead of the typical bio-babble, then all you have is presuppositions, wishful thinking, speculation, and bad interpretations.

Sad.
When presented with it you flat out ignore it, then later claim it was never presented.


One wonders when you are going to present actual observational evidence for your claims...?

Still waiting :yes:

 

[Simurgh]

I would like observational evidence of macroevolution. Anything beyond this is insufficient evidence, and even that is being modest.

And what evidence do you have that proves anything regarding your creationist myths to be factual and/ or evidence based?

 

[outhouse]

Speculation.

Fact

This is viewed a truth for most of the educated world.

IAP - IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution


We agree that the following evidence-based facts

about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:
•In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
•Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
•Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
•Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

And you say this based on what? What is the refutation? And the whole concept is based on the complete impossibility of the only other alternative, which is infinite regression.

So explain to me how infinity can be traversed. I will wait.

To "sit" there requires several dimensions. One of which is time. "how long did you sit" "when did you sit" "At what point where you not sitting" ect ect ect ect ect. You must be within "time" to "do" anything. Otherwise you are telling me a 2 dimensional force can push an object in the direction of a dimension that it does not exist.

Though I ask why you believe in an infinite god if you think that infinity cannot be transversed? It seems that you are, if you don't mind me pulling from scripture, "swallowing a camel but choking on a gnat".

I repeat, based on what? Empty claims. I gave a complete argument as to why this "timeless" view is logical and necessary. If you disagree with this, fine, but disagree with an actual refutation...not these rather empty and non-substantial claims.

Your asking me why 2+2 is 4. I don't know how to make any any simpler. You are trying to describe something that is impossible. It is impossible because the things you are describing REQUIRE time as an essential component.

You don't seem to be getting that and I don't know how to get you to understand. What you have pictured in your head is simply scientifically wrong. Imagine a 1 dimensional object. Can you do it?

I am not using logic based on temporal things.

That much is obvious. But what you fail to realize is that the logic you are trying to ascribe does not work without temporal factors.

In the analogy, the atemporal being caused something to exist, which was in time. If the argument was that God created the universe OUTSIDE OF TIME, then you would have a point. But that isn't the argument. The argument is God existed in a timeless state (whether you like it or not) casually prior to the universe, but when God created the universe, time was created and that was the first temporal act. The universe was created in time.

You cannot have a casually prior event without time. That is what you don't get. Without time you cannot have "cause". End of story.
If the being was atemporal then it could not be in time.
If it was in time then it was not atemporal.
If god is atemporal then he cannot "cause" anything in the understanding of cause and effect.

The "before" is the causal agent which existed necessarily in a timeless state. In the analogy, if I sat perfectly still in a chair for all eternity...there is no temporal before or after....if a horse pops in to being next to me, my existence still precedes the horse, just not in a temporal sense.

Or how about this, instead of telling me how crazy my analogy is, tell me how infinity can be traversed in a past-eternal material world. If you can do that, then I will abandon my POV, since it "makes no sense". Go ahead.

Again there is no "causal" agent in an atemporal state. To be causal requires a temporal factor.

If you sat in a chair, unmoving, for all of eternity then it is still TEMPORAL. Just because you did not move does not mean that you did not experience a temporal existence.

Why is past-eternal a problem? Is not god eternal? Then that must mean by your world view that "eternity" can exist. Why not, then, could the universe be eternal also?

Though this isn't necessarily what current science seems to point. I don't claim to be an expert and I am probably not the best to answer. But how about this? Just because we haven't found the cure for cancer doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. That most definitely doesn't' mean that prayer healing works in favor of it. Just because we don't "know" something doesn't mean that religion or god is correct by default.

Explain to me what is incoherent about the idea of God existing in a timeless state before the universe? Explain to me the illogic. So far, all you've made is empty claims.

God could not have existed in a timeless state because ______________?

There is no "before" time. Its an incoherent lard of a statement.

If you have depth, you should have height. Just sayin.

This statement pretty much sums up why you are wrong. You don't understand the nature of dimensions.

I already did. Please answer my questions above. There is nothing flawed about my analogy. What is flawed is infinite regression. That is flawed. Explain to me how infinity can be traversed based on a past-eternal material universe that is constantly in a state of change.

Enlighten me, and if you can successfully do that, I will abandon my way of thinking. But I will predict that you can't, so you won't.

You have done nothing to defend your claims. You have stated them. I and other have pointed out why they are wrong and you rinse and repeat.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Look, the argument was meant to demonstrate timelessness, not to be scientifically accurate, obviously.

/thread

 

[secret2]

I should be able to observe macroevolution the same way I observe microevolution. Your response to this is "it takes so long to occur", well, that just doesn't sit right with me. That is just the evolutionists' way to stall. Evolution is a con. Satan has conned mankind dressed in a white lab coat.

So sad that after so many years of free and unlimited education on this very discussion board, you still think that evolution amounts to Pokemon-styled human popping out of monkey vagina or dog giving birth to some "non-dog" over a single generation. Truly sad.

 

[johnhanks]

I should be able to observe macroevolution the same way I observe microevolution.

Yes, and I should be able to observe galaxies with the same microscope I use for looking at bacteria.

Your response to this is "it takes so long to occur", well, that just doesn't sit right with me.

Right, and astronomers telling me galaxies are too big for my microscope doesn't sit right with me. And anything that doesn't sit right with me is wrong by definition, because my worldview is the only arbiter of truth.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

To "sit" there requires several dimensions. One of which is time. "how long did you sit" "when did you sit" "At what point where you not sitting" ect ect ect ect ect.

You are still missing the point in all of this. There is no "how long did you sit" if an action never BEGAN.

You must be within "time" to "do" anything. Otherwise you are telling me a 2 dimensional force can push an object in the direction of a dimension that it does not exist.

No, you must be within time to BEGIN to do anything, and that is just not the case in the analogy. In the analogy, there is no time. I don't know what part of that you don't understand.

Though I ask why you believe in an infinite god if you think that infinity cannot be transversed? It seems that you are, if you don't mind me pulling from scripture, "swallowing a camel but choking on a gnat".

I am not using infinite in terms of quantity, but I am using the word in terms of quality...meaning his attributes are maxed out to the greatest degree.

Your asking me why 2+2 is 4. I don't know how to make any any simpler. You are trying to describe something that is impossible. It is impossible because the things you are describing REQUIRE time as an essential component.

Please explain to me how is time a factor in my analogy.

You don't seem to be getting that and I don't know how to get you to understand. What you have pictured in your head is simply scientifically wrong. Imagine a 1 dimensional object. Can you do it?

Before you criticize me on my lack of understanding, you should first accurately understand the analogy.

That much is obvious. But what you fail to realize is that the logic you are trying to ascribe does not work without temporal factors.

There is no temporal factor in the analogy.

You cannot have a casually prior event without time.

In the analogy, something was casually prior, but not temporally prior. There were no moments which lead to the sitting, so there couldn't be any moments AFTER the sitting. This concept can be conceived, it is logical. You can think of a man that has been sitting in a chair for eternity without ever moving. Time does not exist in this scenario. Once again, what part of that don't you understand?

That is what you don't get. Without time you cannot have "cause". End of story.

I agree, which is why I have CONTINUED to maintain that the creation of the universe was in time. I have said that time and time again (no pun intended). So the creation event was in time, so therefore this objection is unwarranted.

If the being was atemporal then it could not be in time.

Duh.

If it was in time then it was not atemporal.

Duh

If god is atemporal then he cannot "cause" anything in the understanding of cause and effect.

Once again, God was atemporal and it wasn't until the instance of creation did he become temporal...so the act of creation occurred in time. So once again, your objection is unwarranted.

If you sat in a chair, unmoving, for all of eternity then it is still TEMPORAL. Just because you did not move does not mean that you did not experience a temporal existence.

If there are no moments before, nor moments after, in what temporal sense am I sitting?

Why is past-eternal a problem? Is not god eternal?

Based on the infinity problem that I keep raising over and over again.

Then that must mean by your world view that "eternity" can exist.

I've described my world view in a way that is non-contradictory. The alternative option is contradictory, which is infinite regression.

Why not, then, could the universe be eternal also?

If the universe was eternal, there would be infinite regression, which is absurd (for the umpfh-teen time)

Though this isn't necessarily what current science seems to point. I don't claim to be an expert and I am probably not the best to answer. But how about this? Just because we haven't found the cure for cancer doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. That most definitely doesn't' mean that prayer healing works in favor of it. Just because we don't "know" something doesn't mean that religion or god is correct by default.

That is quite true, but I am not saying "I dont know, therefore God exists". I am saying "Option A is impossible, therefore, Option B". Remember, law of excluded middle: If there are only two options available, and only one can be true, if you negate one option as false, then the other option is true by default.

For the reasons I mentioned, infinite regression is demonstrably false, which means the only other option wins by default.

There is no "before" time. Its an incoherent lard of a statement.

I agree, which is why I am not using "before" in a temporal sense.

This statement pretty much sums up why you are wrong. You don't understand the nature of dimensions.

What I DO know is the impossibility of infinite regression, which could not be possible in any realm of reality. And as long as this is true, then the option of a timeless cause is not only true, but necessarily true.

You have done nothing to defend your claims. You have stated them. I and other have pointed out why they are wrong and you rinse and repeat.

What you have shown is the fact that you don't understand what is being told to you. If you did, I wouldn't have to constantly repeat myself by stating that there is no concept of time in the analogy.

 

[metis]

It is true to me.

It is sufficient to me and the other billions of religious believers in this world.

I have reasons for what I believe. These reasons are good enough for me...they are convincing to me. I can't speak for the next person.

But none of the above is evidence. The issue is not what you believe but that you demand evidence from others dealing with evolution but provide not one speck of it for your own position.

I may have mentioned this before, but I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church that opposed any belief in evolution, but as I studied that aspect of biology, I knew that which I was being taught by the church simply was wrong, so I left. I even had thoughts about going into the ministry up to that point. Fortunately, I later found a church that was not willing to thumb its nose at science, and converted when I was 30.

My point above is simply that one can be a dedicated Christian without having to ignore science.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You are still missing the point in all of this. There is no "how long did you sit" if an action never BEGAN.

If the action never began then it never happened. Its about defining what is and what isn't. For there to be such an action as "sitting in a chair" or what have you, temporal existence is required. How does a 1 dimensional creature sit in a chair?

No, you must be within time to BEGIN to do anything, and that is just not the case in the analogy. In the analogy, there is no time. I don't know what part of that you don't understand.

The part where you seem to think that we can have a "before" time. Causual or not. You seem to think that there was a "time" where "time" didn't exist. Just because you say 'in this example time doesn't exist" doesn't make it applicable.

"I have oranges in a bowl sitting on a table. but there is no table. Checkmate atheists" is more or less the amount of coherency within your analogy.

I am not using infinite in terms of quantity, but I am using the word in terms of quality...meaning his attributes are maxed out to the greatest degree.

This makes no sense.

Please explain to me how is time a factor in my analogy.

Existence in any way that we know is dependent upon temporal factors. In your example you proposed that you existed in a chair and the girl was not there correct? Then at some point the girl was there? Correct? This is impossible and folly if you are without time. There would be no point in which the girl was not there or there would be no point in which she was. Your trying to force cause and effect in a situation in which there can logically be no cause and effect.

Before you criticize me on my lack of understanding, you should first accurately understand the analogy.

I have shown that I fully understand your analogy and why it is not applicable.

There is no temporal factor in the analogy.

yes there is. You cannot say something "pops" into existence. You cannot simply say that you exist, then something else exists and there was no temporal factor to differentiate between the two points of existence.

In the analogy, something was casually prior, but not temporally prior. There were no moments which lead to the sitting, so there couldn't be any moments AFTER the sitting. This concept can be conceived, it is logical. You can think of a man that has been sitting in a chair for eternity without ever moving. Time does not exist in this scenario. Once again, what part of that don't you understand?

I understand it fully. You are the one missing the pieces here. There is no way to say that "causally prior" without meaning temporally prior. Chronologically prior does not exactly mean causally prior. I think that is your major mistake here. The rest of it is just gibberish and self conflicting statements.

I agree, which is why I have CONTINUED to maintain that the creation of the universe was in time. I have said that time and time again (no pun intended). So the creation event was in time, so therefore this objection is unwarranted.

At what time did he become temporal? How was an atemporal being within the universe to create it? How did he turn temporal without the universe to create the universe if he didn't? How did he "change" from atemporal to temporal if atemporal cannot experience change?

Once again, God was atemporal and it wasn't until the instance of creation did he become temporal...so the act of creation occurred in time. So once again, your objection is unwarranted.

Same as above..

If there are no moments before, nor moments after, in what temporal sense am I sitting?

An ignorant one. How does a one dimensional being sit in a chair?

Based on the infinity problem that I keep raising over and over again.

Your simply stating its a problem. Why is it a problem?

I've described my world view in a way that is non-contradictory. The alternative option is contradictory, which is infinite regression.

Why is infinite regression contradictory? (your view on things are obviously contradictory but seeing as the rest of this post is all about the in depth reason of why I shall stick to the other part of this response)

If the universe was eternal, there would be infinite regression, which is absurd (for the umpfh-teen time)

Why is it absurd? Why is god being infinite not absurd?

That is quite true, but I am not saying "I dont know, therefore God exists". I am saying "Option A is impossible, therefore, Option B". Remember, law of excluded middle: If there are only two options available, and only one can be true, if you negate one option as false, then the other option is true by default.
For the reasons I mentioned, infinite regression is demonstrably false, which means the only other option wins by default.

Except there are no set number of options. There is not simply "option A" and "Option B". We don't "know" what all the options are.
You also have not demonstrated infinite regression to be impossible either. Again why is it so? And why is god excluded from this?

I agree, which is why I am not using "before" in a temporal sense.

Is it causal? If so its temporal. Don't confuse temporal with chronological.

What I DO know is the impossibility of infinite regression, which could not be possible in any realm of reality. And as long as this is true, then the option of a timeless cause is not only true, but necessarily true.

How do you know it to be true? And if we did know it to be true why would "god" have to create the universe if it is possible for it to have come to be by natural causes?

What you have shown is the fact that you don't understand what is being told to you. If you did, I wouldn't have to constantly repeat myself by stating that there is no concept of time in the analogy.

Except you are wrong because you don't understand what temporal means. So much so that even when it is pointed out to you directly by several different people you still don't see it.

 

[cottage]

Well, I still don't know your position. You give only so much...you said time began with the world, but offer no explanation as to how or WHY such a thing could occur. So I am left scratching my head still wondering what does this mean, and it appears to be just as unintelligible as you claim my position is.

There can’t be a ‘How’ if the world is uncaused. ‘How’ explanations must imply a cause, which there isn’t! And the terms ‘Why’ and ‘How’ are without meaning until the world is in existence. Only God, a personal, conscious being needs a cogent reason for creating the universe.

Then I guess there is really no argument from contingency then. If God had a eternal will to create the universe, then there is no way he could NOT create the universe, so the creation event was...necessary.

That's right! There is no necessity in causation.

I still don't know what this means unless I know how the universe and time could begin without an external cause.

That’s because you can’t stop yourself from believing that cause is necessary, even though you know it isn’t.

My guess would be that God brought the world into being because he wanted creatures to share his love with.

But non-existent creatures cannot benefit from God’s love!

Logically impossible? Why? We can both conceive of a being that can create from nothing, so it can't be that impossible, now could it?

What! Of course it’s logically impossible! Explain to me how you manage to do that without self-contradiction, because I certainly can’t do it. As Craig himself says ‘from nothing, nothing comes’; it is a contradiction in terms. Creating something out of or from nothing is absurd.

Um, yes it does. If God is unable to do X, and you can conceive of a being that IS capable of doing X, then that being is greater than God (as far as omnipotence is concerned), but that can't be the case IF God is a maximally great being, at which there couldn't exist a being that is capable of doing X if God is unable to.

That’s false! God can do whatever is logically possible

1. The notion of time ending implies no contradiction.
2. And if it’s non-contradictory then it is logically possible
3. If it’s logically possible, then an omnipotent God can end time
If God can’t end time then he’s not omnipotent

The question concerns ‘omnipotence’, which means there can be no greater power, whereas ‘unimaginably powerful’ (Craig’s most used term), seems to imply that as imperfect creatures we are not able to think outside the boundaries of our minds, but in any case it certainly doesn’t mean power augmented without limit, which must apply to God if he is maximally great.

If it is possible for my God to sustain existence without time, then it is possible for my God to exist. But you previously stated that God's existence is impossible. So which is it? It can't be possible for God to exist, and also true that God DOESN'T exist at the same time. That is not how necessary truths work, cot. X cannot be possibly necessarily true, but actually false. If X is possibly necessarily true, then X must be true, because if X was false, it wouldn't be possibly necessarily true to begin with.

I have argued several propositions demonstrating God’s supposed existence is contradictory or unintelligible. But when required I also assume God’s existence to demonstrate if-then arguments – I thought you would understand…

That can't be the case regarding our earth. On earth, things change, and change takes time. So I don't know what life on earth minus time would look like?

So you are saying in this universe there cannot be a change in the uniformity of nature? And yet you believe a dead body can spring to life after three days, which is a change in the uniformity of nature! So I think you are being rather selective.

Maybe it is better for humans to experience the goodness of God than otherwise, and since God can only do what is good, thus, human life.

God isn’t maximally good, as in omnibenevolent or all merciful, and the evidence of that is all around us. And further to that we have such statements as this uttered by Christ: “Whosover speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world nor in the woprld to come.” So, it’s “everlasting fire”, no forgiveness for simply daring to speak one’s mind!! Yours is a jealous and vindictive deity.

Then once again, if God exists, then experience is necessary. Think about it; if God is necessary, then he experiences his own existence, which would make his experience as necessary as his existence. And if he had an eternal will to create the universe, then our universe cannot be said to be contingent, because it cannot be any different than what God eternally willed it to be. Now, the argument from contingency seems fine if you negate the existence of God, which would mean that the universe didn't have to be here, but it is. But this itself calls out for explanation, why is it here? So it seems to me as if the argument from contingency is a great objection to your argument.

But experience isn’t necessary! Nothing is demonstrable unless the contrary implies a contradiction; and ‘Nothing in the empirical world is demonstrable’ implies no contradiction, therefore nothing in the empirical world is demonstrable.

As long as you can conceive of a MGB, then it must be possible for a MGB to exist. The attributes of this being also reflects the attributes of the being that is indentified in the kalam. To different arguments, same results. That is more than a coincidence.

See my next post

Only if the cause was temporally prior to the effect, and based on the case that I present, it isn't.

Entirely irrelevant! Causality is a worldly phenomenon, lacking necessity.

 

[cottage]

So what caused the beginning?

I'm saying there is no cause!

If all you said above is true, then why on earth am I still asking WHAT COULD HAVE GIVEN TIME AND THE UNIVERSE ITS BEGINNING?

I would say because of inductive reasoning, force of habit, and your commitment to a doctrinal belief, you are philosophically dogmatic in believing worldly phenomena is some kind of necessary truth, which of course is self-contradictory.

So many things wrong up there, sometimes you just have to do this

Perhaps the shrug would be justified if you'd actually explained 'why so many things are wrong'? At least then I'd have had the opportunity to reply to them.